What's new

India third largest investor and generate more jobs in UK

I can ask you the same question. Why would the Office for National Statistics lie?? It's on Chapter 5, Page 61 of the FDI 2009 report. All my US FDI numbers are from the US Treasury.

Does it even make sense to you that a country so starved for capital that it has to raise it offshore in Mauritus, has the level of capital (not number of projects) to be number 3 in the UK (over all the rich euro and north American countries).
i don't think u even know the relationship between mauritus route and indian black money....google this and then u will realise that atleast 80% of the money coming from that are of Indians only....
 
LONDON: India was the third largest investor in Britain during 2010-11 with 97 new projects, generating several jobs in a country facing recession and major job losses, according to official figures released.

"Among the high growth markets, India and China are still the two principal sources of inward investment by project numbers," an official report titled by 'UK Inward Investment Report 2010-2011' released by the UK Trade and Investment said.

An example of India's growing investment in Britain is Tata Steel and Australia's Dyesol's recently announced expansion of their 11 million pounds collaborative R&D project in Flintshire to develop the world's first continuously manufactured dye-sensitised photovoltaic product on steel, for building applications.

Peter Strikwerda, managing director of Tata Steel Colors, said: "This project forms a key part of our strategy to develop a new range of functional coated steel products. The expansion takes it from its laboratory and pilot line phase into a pre-industrialisation phase".

He added: "We will now accelerate technical progress with the objective of establishing a product, process and supply chain that can be successfully commercialised".

The report indicates that Britain is the top destination for foreign investment in Europe.

Speaking to over 100 CEOs of the UK's leading investors at UKTI's Business Summit, Business Secretary Vince Cable said: "The UK is rightly proud of what it achieves in exporting ideas and products overseas, but also in bringing new technologies and talent home".

He added: "With more overseas companies choosing the UK to set up their headquarters than anywhere else, we are in a good position to capitalise on these opportunities."

Foreign secretary William Hague said: "The strong investment performance in this report confirms what many already know; the UK is a great place to invest, grow and succeed.

UK investors benefit from a globally renowned science and technology base, access to talent and a skilled labour force, in one of the most open economies in the world".

The US tops the country of foreign investment during the year with 388 projects, while Japan is second with 105 projects. Sector-wise, 'Software' attracted the most new projects: 229.

India third largest investor and generate more jobs in UK - The Times of India

good article. thank you
 
Off the top, 2/3rd is debt. The remaining 1/3 is paid for with more debt and some equity. That some equity may be financed with even more debt of an even lower class. Net, net FDI from India that year was £265 million. The part in bold I won't even dignify with a response.

And what part of post #48 didn't you understand??


Your first proposition is that debt to equity ratio for an acquisition is 20:1, while I argued that the ratio for a regular is much lower. Tata Corus deal was a 2:1 ratio. Is there no difference 20:1 and 2:1

Your second proposition is companies rarely have excess cash. Any company that can pay dividends has excess cash. I know that in China, rarely that companies pay dividends.China likes to do things differently than how the world does

As regarding the sophistication of financial system, China‘s financial system is dominated by your banking sector. According to some estimates your big four banks account for 70% of your whole financial system, while India’s financial system is much more balanced. We have a modest sized banking sector, a large equity market and a sizable government bond market. China’s growth comes from its credit. Your present credit is 200% of your GDP; While India’s growth has comes all asset classes.
 
I can ask you the same question. Why would the Office for National Statistics lie?? It's on Chapter 5, Page 61 of the FDI 2009 report. All my US FDI numbers are from the US Treasury.

Does it even make sense to you that a country so starved for capital that it has to raise it offshore in Mauritus, has the level of capital (not number of projects) to be number 3 in the UK (over all the rich euro and north American countries).

Can you post link of the document for the sake of the forum
 
Your finance knowledge or reading comprehension is very poor. I'm dead serious. The deal is levered way more than 2:1. Read it again. The equity portion is levered again. I can't help you if you don't help yourself. Who knows if this equity is is levered again as a third class of debt. Probably was. Also they ringfenced the deal so you can't go after Tata's equity (thereby increasing the true leverage). Net, NET(including outflows) the FDI from India to the UK that year was £265 million.

"Tata Steel's $4.1 billion contribution will serve as the equity capital of Tata Steel UK. This will be raised by Tata Steel through a combination of debt and equity."

I may be a Chinese-American but this has nothing to do with China and everything to do with your sophomoric knowledge of finance.

Your first proposition is that debt to equity ratio for an acquisition is 20:1, while I argued that the ratio for a regular is much lower. Tata Corus deal was a 2:1 ratio. Is there no difference 20:1 and 2:1

Your second proposition is companies rarely have excess cash. Any company that can pay dividends has excess cash. I know that in China, rarely that companies pay dividends.China likes to do things differently than how the world does

As regarding the sophistication of financial system, China‘s financial system is dominated by your banking sector. According to some estimates your big four banks account for 70% of your whole financial system, while India’s financial system is much more balanced. We have a modest sized banking sector, a large equity market and a sizable government bond market. China’s growth comes from its credit. Your present credit is 200% of your GDP; While India’s growth has comes all asset classes.
 
Your finance knowledge or reading comprehension is very poor. I'm dead serious. The deal is levered way more than 2:1. Read it again. The equity portion is levered again. I can't help you if you don't help yourself. Who knows if this equity is is levered again as a third class of debt. Probably was. Also they ringfenced the deal so you can't go after Tata's equity (thereby increasing the true leverage). Net, NET(including outflows) the FDI from India to the UK that year was £265 million.

"Tata Steel's $4.1 billion contribution will serve as the equity capital of Tata Steel UK. This will be raised by Tata Steel through a combination of debt and equity."

I may be a Chinese-American but this has nothing to do with China and everything to do with your sophomoric knowledge of finance.

I giveup. It is hard to make an idiot understand.
 
India doesn't need FDI badly alright rather US and West wants India to open retailing, banking and insurance sector which India hasn't done to protect the interest of its small time businessman unlike China though a communist country has become more capatalistic than US now

really? ok, forget abt retailing/banking/insurance etc, where does india get that 1trillion dollars to fix its crappy infra?
 
I giveup. It is hard to make an idiot understand.

Okay Mr. Diksh!t (since you called me an idiot, I'll assume that your real last name is Diksh!t).

Here's how it was financed and NO Tata didn't have $4.1 Billion to put up. In fact they didn't have a penny. They had to raise debt and equity from the Indian and FOREIGN markets to do this deal. Here's how they raised the $12.9 billion.

$6.14B long term debt
$2.66B bridge finance (revolver)
$500 million in equity linked notes from aboard (this is debt)
$1 billion in a new rights issue for convertible preferred
$862 in new common equity from a rights offering
$1.74 from a global depository receipts from aboard

This is the pure definition of a leveraged buyout Mr. Diksh!t. Two to one leverage my arse.
 
Okay Mr. Diksh!t (since you called me an idiot, I'll assume that your real last name is Diksh!t).

Here's how it was financed and NO Tata didn't have $4.1 Billion to put up. In fact they didn't have a penny. They had to raise debt and equity from the Indian and FOREIGN markets to do this deal. Here's how they raised the $12.9 billion.

$6.14B long term debt
$2.66B bridge finance (revolver)
$500 million in equity linked notes from aboard (this is debt)
$1 billion in a new rights issue for convertible preferred
$862 in new common equity from a rights offering
$1.74 from a global depository receipts from aboard

This is the pure definition of a leveraged buyout Mr. Diksh!t. Two to one leverage my arse.


Yeah Right ! Tata doesnt have a penny !! LOL !! Please read on and get some education !

Jaguar Land Rover rewards Tata's faith and investment


In December 2008, David Smith, the Jaguar Land Rover chief executive, said the UK car industry was facing a "national emergency" and required "urgent action" as car sales fell 33pc year-on-year.
Behind the scenes, Smith was warning Lord Mandelson, the then Business Secretary, that thousands of jobs would be lost if the Government did not provide financial support.
That aid never came from Lord Mandelson, despite face-to-face talks with Ratan Tata and support from Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister.
However, two years on, the only loser from that decision appears to be the taxpayer.
JLR has just posted record-breaking annual profits of more than £1bn on revenues of almost £10bn.
Without a bail-out, the turnaround has been driven by the commitment of JLR's foreign parent, the quality of its 17,000 strong British workforce, and booming emerging markets.
After rejecting Lord Mandelson's condition-laden proposal, Tata set about securing £500m of commercial finance for JLR while at the same time pouring in £1bn of its own cash to prop up the company and to maintain investment in research and development. Since 2009, it has invested £1bn a year in R&D and plans to continue that spending for the next five years.
The new JLR chief executive Ralf Speth said yesterday that this investment will lead to "the most ambitious product development programme in the history of the brands". It has already helped to yield cutting-edge projects such as the Range Rover Evoque and CX-75 hybrid supercar.
But while the cash has come from India, the expertise has come from Britain. JLR has a workforce of 17,000 staff at three manufacturing plants and two R&D bases in Britain.
Tata, unlike other foreign owners, has committed JLR to the UK because it recognises the importance of British heritage to the brands and, despite recent comments, the quality of British engineers.
Before Tata arrived, JLR's workforce had laid the foundations for future success with models such as the Jaguar XK and XF, through famed designer Ian Callum, and the modernisation of Land Rover. In 2007, under Ford ownership, JLR secured its record sales – 292,000 cars – still 20pc greater than the latest annual results.
Tata has supported this team with two key management additions – Carl-Peter Forster, the former boss of General Motors Europe who is now Tata Motors chief executive, and the highly-rated Speth – who have brought fresh ambition to JLR.
"Please do not think that the product development programme is only down to new management," Forster said yesterday. "We have a very strong team around us."
Tata's investment and the progress of the workforce has been rewarded with surging sales in the booming economies of the East. In China and India, the growing middle classes aspire to own Jaguar and Land Rover cars. In March this year, Land Rover sales rose 33pc in China and 61pc in India, while Jaguar enjoyed a 70pc rise in Russia. For the entire business, China now accounts for 11pc of sales and Russia 5pc.
This growth means JLR was last year able to scrap plans to close one of its three UK plants, and is now considering an engine plant to help deal with the soaring demand.
The company faces significant challenges in the future, such as rising raw material costs and competition from larger German rivals such as BMW, who still sell more in a quarter than JLR does in a year.
But the progress made in emerging markets and the prospect of forty new models – including a small Jaguar – means JLR can move forward with optimism.
Howard Wheeldon, senior strategist at BGC Partners and automotive analyst, said: "Without doubt JLR is now very firmly back on the international premium car market map and my hope is that what we see now may only be the start."

Jaguar Land Rover rewards Tata's faith and investment - Telegraph
 
Okay Mr. Diksh!t (since you called me an idiot, I'll assume that your real last name is Diksh!t).

Here's how it was financed and NO Tata didn't have $4.1 Billion to put up. In fact they didn't have a penny. They had to raise debt and equity from the Indian and FOREIGN markets to do this deal. Here's how they raised the $12.9 billion.

$6.14B long term debt
$2.66B bridge finance (revolver)
$500 million in equity linked notes from aboard (this is debt)
$1 billion in a new rights issue for convertible preferred
$862 in new common equity from a rights offering
$1.74 from a global depository receipts from aboard

This is the pure definition of a leveraged buyout Mr. Diksh!t. Two to one leverage my arse.

But who's gonna pay for it in the end. Is it the debt issuer or Tata? Are we to say that because Tata got it in bonds and loans he isn't investing. Then why can't you go and raise the money to buy Corus then? Would you get even ten thousand dollars towards this end?
 
sophomoric... :what:

Do you even know what type of financial instrument you are talking about.

The very fact you mentioned that equity is in the third class of debt (debt??? ...pls study ABCs of finance first) means that to get the deal through the TATA's envisaged a CDO !!! (Collateralize Debt Obligation) where a pool of debt securities are combined and reissued into various tranches of security. Each level of security has a higher credit rating than the lower one and each tranche provides cushion to its previous one in case of any default by the counterparty. Higher the rating lower is the yield as chances of default is the lowest. Needless to say the equity portion (which is NOT a debt!!!!) has the highest yield and the lowest credit rating.
This was a wonderful model which the TATA's followed in order to acquire Corrus and this model will likely be followed in other M&A deals as well.

Sorry to say the debt portion would be higher than 2:1 but definitively not 20:1.

Read and understand first .... just bantering your a$$ around in forums won't lead you anywhere ....
Your finance knowledge or reading comprehension is very poor. I'm dead serious. The deal is levered way more than 2:1. Read it again. The equity portion is levered again. I can't help you if you don't help yourself. Who knows if this equity is is levered again as a third class of debt. Probably was. Also they ringfenced the deal so you can't go after Tata's equity (thereby increasing the true leverage). Net, NET(including outflows) the FDI from India to the UK that year was £265 million.

"Tata Steel's $4.1 billion contribution will serve as the equity capital of Tata Steel UK. This will be raised by Tata Steel through a combination of debt and equity."

I may be a Chinese-American but this has nothing to do with China and everything to do with your sophomoric knowledge of finance.
 
Okay Mr. Diksh!t (since you called me an idiot, I'll assume that your real last name is Diksh!t).

Here's how it was financed and NO Tata didn't have $4.1 Billion to put up. In fact they didn't have a penny. They had to raise debt and equity from the Indian and FOREIGN markets to do this deal. Here's how they raised the $12.9 billion.

$6.14B long term debt
$2.66B bridge finance (revolver)
$500 million in equity linked notes from aboard (this is debt)
$1 billion in a new rights issue for convertible preferred
$862 in new common equity from a rights offering
$1.74 from a global depository receipts from aboard

This is the pure definition of a leveraged buyout Mr. Diksh!t. Two to one leverage my arse.

That's a pretty good and accurate breakdown you got there, which data system /report are you getting this from?
 

Back
Top Bottom